France Continues Mass Processing Of Infringement Accusations: 60 People Get Third Strike Notice... 650,000 Get First Strike
from the crimininalizing-an-entire-country dept
The latest stats coming out of France's HADOPI "three strikes" (really three accusations) policy are really quite stunning. Most of the focus is on the fact that 60 ISP account holders have received their third strike, and now await to see if they'll be fined and/or kicked off the internet without ever having actually been convicted of copyright infringement. But, to me, the much more interesting numbers are the first and second strike numbers. An astounding 650,000 people have received "first strike" notices, with 44,000 of those receiving a second strike as well. Those are huge numbers. It makes you wonder, at what point do those in power begin to recognize that if so many people are engaging in this, there must be some sort of better solution.The entertainment industry loves to call infringement "theft," but I don't think anyone would argue that 650,000 people are running around France stealing things out of stores. And that's because people inherently recognize that there's a massive difference between stealing a physical product, such that there's one less of it, and listening to a song that they like, where nothing is removed for anyone else. When a huge percentage of your population is accused of breaking the law, the problem is not with the people... but with the law.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: france, hadopi, statistics
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
France has taken a HUGE step towards taming the internet wild west. Soon there will be 650,000 seeding torrents and uploading infringing content. That will put quite a damper on your community. The party is over, Mike. You, the Tims, and most of the other people on this site are going to realize that someday soon, and I hope it isn't too late to save you from jail time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Most people" you mean.
Most people also understand the concept of justice; as in not being punished for things you haven't been found guilty for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Most people" you mean.
Most people also understand the concept of justice; as in not being punished for things you haven't been found guilty for.
And "most" people understand that it's wrong to get something of value without compensating its rightful owner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The billions of illegal downloads suggest that people do value it. Perhaps think of changing your screen name to Shit For Brains, for greater accuracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Catholic Voodoo Economics! (be afraid)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Catholic Voodoo Economics! (be afraid)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Catholic Voodoo Economics! (be afraid)
A collection agency near you will be in touch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Most people would also agree that taking, copying, and sharing are 3 different words which mean 3 different things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Artists do receive residuals and royalties. Are you suggesting that stealing from one group instead of another is justifiable?
Most people would also agree that taking, copying, and sharing are 3 different words which mean 3 different things.
The net effect is that the taker ends up getting something of value without compensation the rightful owner. That's not OK where I come from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The party is over freetard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Everytime you use a door , that'l be a buck, everytime you flip a switch for power that electrician needs residuals too.
every time you use that car you no longer own but have TOS to USE well theres a buck , and if you stay in your hosue were going to throttle you form 4pm to 2am in morning so you cna only use 5% of your house to prevent you over using your house.. ALSO baseball batts and hockey sticks now have SPORTSRIGHTS and every time you want ot use one you have to pay 50$...YUP I can really see profit here until everyone has the same rights.
BASICALLY we the people are being discriminated by the actors and musicians and labels and are being treated like the blacks of the 60's.
THE riaa and mpaa and bsa are racist discriminating bastards. UNTIL i see everyone have the same rights we are not equal under the law which btw in both the usa and Canada says we should have equality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Cellphone = useless
Horse = useless
Cat = useless
Milli Vanilli = useless
Copyright consultations = useless
I just received a phone call from a number not in service 780-356-3646(yes I reported it to antifraud.ca) are you saying this can't happen with IP addresses?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Only when they're "recouped" - which we all know with RIAA/MPAA accounting practices, is somewhere between heat-death-of-the-universe and never.
Are you suggesting that stealing from one group instead of another is justifiable?
Question - how do you justify stealing from the public when previously public domain content is forced back under copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you talking about the industry taking from the artists?
I'm confused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Me too,
but I'm also tired of taking in the end from people/lobbying groups/corporations/artists/Anonymous Cowards who feel entitled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Heck, I don't even agree that it's stealing. It's infringement. And no, I don't agree that infringement is justifiable.
I also don't agree with this sentiment. It's not automatically wrong to enjoy something without compensating the rightful owner. There's nothing wrong with enjoying looking at a nice painting without paying the painting's owner. There's nothing wrong with enjoying a beautiful landscape without paying the property owner. There's nothing wrong with enjoying the smell of baking cookies without paying the baker.
In all of these cases, the owner was not deprived of anything, so my enjoyment caused them no harm. Therefore, there's nothing wrong with enjoying them.
Again, sadly, I must reiterate that I do think there's something wrong with copyright infringement, I just don't get there by your rationale. I equally think that infringement is not theft, and to equate the two is very wrong. I also think that copyright as it exists now is abused to deprive people of legitimate non-infringing uses of copyrighted works, and this just as wrong as copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you sneak into the gallery without paying admission?
There's nothing wrong with enjoying a beautiful landscape without paying the property owner.
Not if you hop the fence at the topiary garden rather than paying for admittance.
There's nothing wrong with enjoying the smell of baking cookies without paying the baker.
So watch the free trailer or read the review.
In all of these cases, the owner was not deprived of anything, so my enjoyment caused them no harm. Therefore, there's nothing wrong with enjoying them.
You ignore the point that all of these experiences are at times offered by the owner or rightsholder in exchange for money. Quite simply, you just don't want to pay. That's called freeloading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where did I mention galleries?
Where did I mention trespassing?
Huh? I think you suffered analogy failure, unless you're asserting that the smell of baking is nothing but a "preview" of the baked good, in which case I disagree.
Interesting. You bring in a bunch of nonsequitors in reply to my comments and then accuse me of ignoring them. My apologies, my psychic powers must have failed me.
Besides, your point here is beside the point. I was merely arguing against your unqualified assertion that it's automatically wrong to enjoy something without compensating the rightful owner, something that your reply does not counter-argue.
For the record, I do agree with some of the things you've said here. Trespassing, for instance, is wrong.
Now there's the biggest nonsequitor you've said yet, since nothing that I've said even starts down the road of whether or not I want to pay. We were talking ethics. For the record, I often -- a couple times a week, usually -- pay for things that I could get (legally) for free because I like to support people making things that I enjoy.
What's the opposite of freeloader?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
John you sound too smart to act this stupid. My point is that while it's possible to enjoy free stuff (ie Sita Sings The Blues- though I don't know if enjoy is the word), there a big difference when that stuff is only offered for money by the rightful owner and you still feel free to take it without compensation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The net effect is that the taker ends up getting something of value without compensation the rightful owner."
vs
"that stuff is only offered for money by the rightful owner and you still feel free to take it without compensation."
It's a subtle difference but, as you point out, important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thin Red Line.
Worst pile of crap EVER. Sita Sings the Blues at least had a story and substance. Just because you don't value it doesn't mean that others do not. All entertainment and art is subjective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not if you hop the fence at the topiary garden rather than paying for admittance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You may as well accuse people of "oxygen piracy" because they don't compensate tree farm companies, and therefore "get something of value without compensating its rightful owner". For that train of logic to go anywhere, you would first have to convince them that the air they breathe is "rightfully owned" by the company in question.
Likewise, before you can claim that downloading a song is wrong, you'd first have to convince people that a songwriter is the "rightful owner" of a pattern of bits on their hard drive. Good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who Establishes Ownerhip?
Unfortunately, the content industry can hire the lawyers and public relations people to create the image in the public's mind that it is the public doing the "stealing" based on a property right made out of thin air. Content producers should not have the ability to "make law".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who Establishes Ownerhip?
Yep, but even worse. I've told this story here before but I think it's worth repeating. I have a 20yo movie on Laserdisc, but no working player. I wanted to show it to a friend. Turns out I can get it on VHS or region 2 DVD (I live in region 1). Nobody ever made a region 1 DVD.
I sure as heck didn't want to buy an inferior quality VHS tape, especially since there was a good chance it was old stock and might have deteriorated to unplayability.
How is it benefiting anybody for me not to be able to buy a DVD of a 20yo movie? How does it fail to compensate the "rightful owner" if I buy an out-of-region DVD? How does it compensate the "rightful owner" if I don't buy it because I can't play it?
My solution was to buy the region 2 DVD, use up one of the region changes on an old DVD burner, rip it and play it back on my computer. Worked a treat.
Of course what I did was illegal. By ripping it to my computer I defeated the copy protection and STOLE A COPY THAT I WAS NOT ENTITLED TO. The movie company is now out thousands of dollars due to my selfish act of piracy and theft.
Right?
Yeah. This is the preposterous end result of the MPAA's obsessive need to control every single jot and tittle of distributing their content. People cannot get what they want even when they're willing to pay extra for it, and everybody loses.
One of these days I'll pick up another laserdisc player and transfer all my content to DVD. Another act of piracy! In fact, dozens! Because I only paid for that content once! But there's no copy protection to defeat so it's probably legal. This week. But think of the millions the studios will be out!
(Oh, and I'm probably also guilty of failure to pay thousands in public performance fees because I showed it to somebody else. At home, true, but he's a "member of the public". And besides, he paid for the pizza, so I guess that means I charged him admission.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who Establishes Ownerhip?
I swear that half of the industry's problems could be overcome by simply offering product region free. Then again, I don't know the title you were trying to get. Maybe I could suggest something, especially if it's more of a cult item? Anyway, I know for a fact that I've imported many films that are region 1 only, and most people wouldn't bother with the difficulty and expense.
But, of course, we're "stealing" if we download a movie that's not legally available to us. Which makes as much sense as me "stealing" by sitting here watching UK Channel 4 through my satellite box in Spain (I didn't pay for the channel, as I wasn't asked to).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Won't somebody think of the sun?! Maybe we need Mr burns to blot out the sun because we all know infinite resources should be controlled by someone in power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Digital copies are literally free and infinite so nothing has been lost by the creator.
Unless of course he was trying to make a living selling something that is now cost free and infinite in abundance. That's going to be hard to do...
However, the power of the internet can seriously INCREASE the exposure of the artist and thus gain more money through other avenues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sell: Tickets, Live Streams, T-shirts,Cups,Caps, Mugs, Toys.
Music isn't your best revenue stream.
Why is it distributors make so much and the bands earn so little?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I see - so how much are the cheques you write to Google each time you do a web search? And to the producers of the various TV programs you watch? And to the musicians for each of the songs you listen to on the radio?
After all, you wouldn't be one of them "freetards" who gets something of value without paying its rightful owner, would you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The air you breath is valuable, yet you are compensating no one.
Who is the rightful owner of something? Just because you dug a hole at the beach and someone stepped over it doesn't make the digger a rightful owner.
There is nothing wrong with copying each other. Animals copy one another all the time. No one is the 'rightful owner' of a monopoly privilege. No one is entitled to a monopoly. Property laws aren't about 'rightful owners' and they shouldn't exist for that reason. As Thomas Jefferson notes, everyone rightfully owns everything equally. We have property laws to serve the public interest. IP laws aren't about 'compensating the rightful owners' they're about 'promoting the progress'. They don't exist because it is somehow wrong not to compensate the 'rightful owner' they exist only to promote the progress. If that's not what they're doing, if that's not their intent, then I say we abolish them. If you don't like it, then no one is forcing you to produce stuff and publicly release it. If you don't want people copying you, then don't publicly release anything. Others will innovate perfectly fine without you and they'll innovate perfectly fine without unninnovative and litigious lawyers.
Just because some corrupt government claims that someone is the 'rightful owner' of something doesn't make it true. What gives the government that discretion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But there no wayin hell I'm going to pay for an album or a concert without listening to the artist _extensively_ first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
....what exactly am I going to jail for, Sparky?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's because while the Nazis were doing their thing, the French silently rounded up every Tim within their borders and forced them to listen to French Rap Music until they bled out through their ears. Us chosen Tims refer to that as the HoloTim.
NEVER AGAIN, FRENCHIES!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
- infringement = theft
- entitled freetard
- taming the internet wild west
- enforcement is going to work this time
- the party is over
Combining all those in one post and fooling a substantial number of people into thinking you're serious? Amazing! I can't believe you would give it only a 4. :-p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I guess what you mean is just that you really hate native americans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now, just sit back and think about what you are advocating. You are going to piss off a lot of people. Because Intellectual Property is a legal fiction (could be called part of a societal contract), if you piss off enough people, society can take it away from you. 650,000 people who have been accused , some based on faulty data, and not convicted, can start to cause a stink.
Long story short, if you want to keep your precious intellectual property "rights," you better not piss too many people off. In fact, the fact that 650,000 people are not respecting those rights might be a sign that they are already slipping through your fingers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ooooo, I'm scared. What are you going to do... get a law passed. Hahahahahaha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nothing really just keep ripping DVD's, recording the radio and TV what else is there to do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's what it really boils down to, stick it to enough people and you will lose at the next election, the incoming politician takes notice and changes the law guaranteeing re-election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, not falling for it.
In the meantime, you guys got punk'd by staff. Don't you feel stupid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Very nice! Well written and clever; though you didn't mention Mike's tiny pegleg. No troll is complete without a classic and unrelated ad hominem attack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even you admit that there are several ACs that post here, why are you so sure there isn't a new one? Why would you want to take credit away from where it's due?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But IP addresses are not enough to identify a person, is that not one of the lessons the place is trying to teach?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not this place, although it's been mentioned a few times. It's one of the lessons that internet engineers & specialists are trying to teach.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You mean like respond to your arguments and hold you accountable for what you said?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In response to whomever said something about 'broad brush': I knew I forgot one. I'll get it right next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, by all means. Humanity is clamoring for more lame poetry set to music. Buffoonery is a much under-represented form of expression these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
For pointing about that noone gives a damn about you enough to bother to impersonate you? Sure, but what can you do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I am corporate shill. Yes, you may quote me on that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Staff? Name them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You are pirating my posts and you are a pirate freetard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even if you don't agree with Mike, what the hell do you think he's done that would warrant prison?
Mike doesn't host or even link to infringing content. He writes a blog which is critical of IP maximalism. Are you seriously suggesting that even speaking out against such things needs to be criminalized?
Let's see if you have the balls to respond.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Even if you don't agree with Mike, what the hell do you think he's done that would warrant prison?
Mike doesn't host or even link to infringing content. He writes a blog which is critical of IP maximalism. Are you seriously suggesting that even speaking out against such things needs to be criminalized?
Let's see if you have the balls to respond.
God you're a chump. you're getting played simpleton.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The end result IMHO will be public scrutiny of both copyright and the patent system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wish into to one hand and shit in the other, see which one fills up first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hard times are a great motivator when it comes to people, and unless you've been living under a rock for the past decade, times have been hard for a lot of people for quite a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why don't you able on down to Wall Street and block the Brooklyn Bridge. Just make sure to wear a "Techdirtbag" t-shirt so I can tell who the guy in the video is who gets maced and is screaming and crying like a little bitch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why don't you amble on down to Wall Street and block the Brooklyn Bridge. Just make sure to wear a "Techdirtbag" t-shirt so I can tell who the guy in the video is who gets maced and is screaming and crying like a little bitch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I also will sell masks for the people there so the mace doesn't get in their eyes LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
62,616,488
so 650,000 first-strike notices is approximately 1% of the population.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seems like the system is working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The industry was complaining that they send out millions of complaints and the French government only took care of a small fraction of it.
Not to mention the government is afraid of really doing its job, because if it did, you would see the fantastic backlash that it would cause.
Now can you explain why the French actually are competing in forums all over there to see who can defeat the system?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Only if you run a for-profit out-of-France proxy service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.iprivacytools.com/ip-address-france/
...You wish to show three strikes doesn't work.
http://www.how-to-hide-ip.info/2009/03/19/how-to-browse-with-french-ip-address/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
According to the US census, the population of the US is 312,363,265. So if a mere 1% of the US population was guilty that would be 3.12 million people.
And also according to the census, in 2009, the last year in which crime statistics were available, the total number of reported crimes (Violent and non-violent/property) in the US was 3.466 million.
So you're telling me that a law which doubles the crime rate of a country is working?
I'm sorry, I don't get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What law nincompoop? The US system is a voluntary agreement, not a law. And illegally downloading copyrighted content has been unlawful before the graduated response agreement.
Herp derp.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Um, Copyright law? The one you reference right after your personal, and lame, attack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Moron. The discussion is about graduated response. In France it's a law. In the US it's a voluntary program. Try to keep up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Have there been any verifications of that, chief?
Herp a derp.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Look at it another way, their may have only been 650,000 notices (only! HA!), but 1,625,000 people just had their access threatened. Did you think this was magically targeting just the member of the house that infringed?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_ave_siz_of_hou-people-average-size-of-households
http://www.internetworldstats.com/top25.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, they do. Just as they think that this will magically be an account owned by the infringer and there will magically be no false positives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
France averages 2.5 people/household.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two words that should sum up this idiocy...
If you can't see the parallels here, I suggest you brush up on your US history (circa 1920-1933) to get a grasp of how this issue is likely to end eventually.
When the population gives no credence to the law, it breads contempt for the law and that is bad no matter what side of the issue you are on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two words that should sum up this idiocy...
If not, Prohibition was classic Ken Burns. Quality stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two words that should sum up this idiocy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two words that should sum up this idiocy...
I've got a copy of his piece on the Shakers, but I haven't seen Prohibition. I guess I should bittorrent a copy from the Pirate Bay and watch it!
*runs away very fast*
(Seriously, now you have me interested. Looks like it's available from Amazon...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Two words that should sum up this idiocy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Two words that should sum up this idiocy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He's usually a good politician, whether you like his policy or not, but here, I'm kind of wondering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Multiply that number by 2.5 people per household and you have 1,625,000 people that are future pirate party members ... you have got to love unintended consequences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right. So you really don't think "piracy is not OK." You really think that the law is not OK. Piracy, though, is just fine and dandy. Right, Pirate Mike?
C'mon. Get out of the pirate closet. It's OK to admit it: You don't think "piracy is not OK."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(I believe I made this comment before)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well you will need to live with it, nobody is going to respect those laws, not even the French, they just found other ways to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You and all you freetards will soon go to jail once ProtectIP is passed. Then you can pretend to be me in jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pirates also have a something you idiots don't and that is stealth :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're right! More accurately, the "crime" is something that a large (and increasing) number of people do not believe is inherently wrong. Technology has allowed us to circumvent the old gatekeepers and go back to doing what we've always done, the sharing of culture. By far the biggest deterrent to committing a crime is peoples' own moral assessment of the act. It's pretty clear from the ever-increasing rate of copyright infringement that it wasn't so much that moral assessment that prevented "piracy", it was the state of technology.
"This system replies to crime at the same speed it occurs."
And it's amazing that you can't see anything wrong with that. Being considered innocent until proven guilty and having a chance to defend yourself in court are long-established standards in most of the world's legal systems, and yet they're being put aside at the behest of an industry that dramatically overrates their position in society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apparently 44,000 are slow learners, or possibly fax machines.
Just 60, potentially people without computers have reached the third strike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This paragraph is why people characterize Masnick as a piracy apologist and supporter of infringing. Sleaze weasel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They give that crap free to everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Because if it is not I doubt it very much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Jay- are you really so stupid that you don't understand the difference between calling someone a pirate versus a piracy apologist.
apologist [əˈpɒlədʒɪst]
n
a person who offers a defence by argument
pi·rate [pahy-ruht] Show IPA noun, verb, -rat·ed, -rat·ing.
noun
4. a person who uses or reproduces the work or invention of another without authorization.
It's probably it bit too subtle for you, but a careful reading will show the terms are indeed a bit different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Troll...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I say this because I doubt very highly that they are all law abiding people.
So, to speak bluntly, this law is not going to be applied fairly or evenly. With that said, add to the fact that this law is enforced without investigation, I do feel that the French people should vote the weasels that enacted this law, out of office.
Yes, those that deserve to be paid should be. And enforcing a law on the people with out any effort of investigation is wrong.
While some of you cheer this as a step forward, I say to you that, this is the erosion of civil rights and should not be tolerated.
IP is supposed to be short term and for the benefit of society, not the wholesale branding thousands of people (Or innocent fax machines.) as criminals.
I'm damn glad I'm old. Hopefully I'll pass before the "IAA" bunch actually have people dragged out of their homes for this crap.
There has to be a better way of dealing this an issue that simply isn't going to go away, short of turning the world in to a police state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
haha hehe hoho
This is great get rid of the french and next up italians ...lets see how europe's economy does now....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmmmm
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111001/06525716172/german-politician-who-wanted-two-str ike-copyright-law-should-disconnect-himself-after-multiple-infringements-found.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who says THEFT can't be POPULAR? Computers make it easy.
Now, I make no bones about resisting increase of copyright because the content doesn't deserve to be rewarded very highly, it's JUST entertainment. That's a nuanced position. But you freetards just want it all free.
Back to exact topic: your assertion from that "study" that 13 percent of those accused would continue was completely wrong, Mike. Only 6.8 percent brave it out to 2nd stage, a handful to 3rd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who says THEFT can't be POPULAR? Computers make it easy.
Boy, talk about an inconvenient truth. Sounds like the graduated response system in France is working pretty well. What say you pudgy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who says THEFT can't be POPULAR? Computers make it easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who says THEFT can't be POPULAR? Computers make it easy.
The figures also don't allow you to say that only 6.8 per cent brave it out to the second stage, you have absolutely no idea whether people if they were infringing when they received the first letter stopped or not. If they were infringing they now may be doing so in more difficult to identify ways. The only thing you can say is that fewer second strike letters have been sent, in itself it has no meaning, except presumably to the French post office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who says THEFT can't be POPULAR? Computers make it easy.
No, in short, there's an objective basis to value. Food and water are of primary importance. You're biased by having been born at a lucky time and place where you take the necessities and even luxuries for granted.
You decide every day what price you'll pay others for every good that you buy: it's called the market. God, it's stupid to even try your line of argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who says THEFT can't be POPULAR? Computers make it easy.
"
woooooooow he understands that the market chose te price, what a big step you have taken :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who says THEFT can't be POPULAR? Computers make it easy.
Yep, and I quite often decide to pay $0 (without downloading a "freebie"). I often buy something else instead. Yet these idiots not only want to call me a pirate for doing so, but want me to have my internet connection removed based on zero evidence and zero due process.
Why is this not a problem to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who says THEFT can't be POPULAR? Computers make it easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://torrentfreak.com/france-tracks-down-18-million-file-sharers-110714/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The average household in France is probably somewhere between 2 to 3 people (from lots of singles living alone & low birthrate). So that means around 2.5% of the population would actually have their Internet shut down if they continue to get accused.
Now say that those #'s from the article are from just 1 year (I bet it's from less then a year really), that would mean that in just 4 years TEN percent of the population will be accused of breaking this law, lots of them enough to be kicked off the Internet.
As a politician that's unsustainable if 10% of your voters will be furious at you come reelection time in a few years over this law that the politician voted for. Worse yet, once 10% of your voters have been kicked off the Internet for fined for mere accusations, fear will spread among the other 90% of your voters that they'll be next to get punished for mere accusations.
Sure they COULD change the law to require a trial over these accusations to try to slow down this rate, but do you have any idea how much money the court costs would eat up over something like this? The courts would be overwhelmed with new cases if even 10% of those accused fought it in court.
If I were a politician who voted for this bill I'd be scared to death at losing my job in half a decade over this law, unless of course I had a multimillion dollar job with the supporters of that law waiting for me when I was out of office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you petty censors still trying this childish "flag" crap?
-----------------------------
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment.
Anonymous Coward, Oct 5th, 2011 @ 8:49am
France has the right idea but they aren't taking it far enough. Theft cannot go unpunished. I don't know why you don't see that if something doesn't belong to you and you take it without any permission then it is theft. You're just a snotty, entitled freetard who thinks the world was created for you.
France has taken a HUGE step towards taming the internet wild west. Soon there will be 650,000 seeding torrents and uploading infringing content. That will put quite a damper on your community. The party is over, Mike. You, the Tims, and most of the other people on this site are going to realize that someday soon, and I hope it isn't too late to save you from jail time.
------------------------
ANY WHO FLAGGED IT, BE BRAVE AND EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHY IT SHOULD BE HIDDEN. I DARE YOU.
Rest of you: since they won't, I suggest those of us who actually believe in free speech just copy and paste these as often as necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you petty censors still trying this childish "flag" crap?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Are you petty censors still trying this childish "flag" crap?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you petty censors still trying this childish "flag" crap?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you petty censors still trying this childish "flag" crap?
It is true though, people should not be flagged for spewing complete bs but the readers here are only human, not some saintly advanced species that have learnt techniques for coping with people who froth at the mouth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Are you petty censors still trying this childish "flag" crap?
Have him link you to the Techdirt post in which he continued commenting for something like 2 months after it originally posted as his own personal memoirs. He'll also explain how in that thread where he went on long after everyone else had gone away, he "like totally debunked everything that's ever been said on this site and stuff"...or something. Seriously, if you want a peek into the mind of the insane, it's worth a read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Are you petty censors still trying this childish "flag" crap?
He should record himself saying it, then play it back unexpectedly and see if he still thinks the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Are you petty censors still trying this childish "flag" crap?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you petty censors still trying this childish "flag" crap?
Your accusation that free speech is being stifled is somewhat undermined by the fact that everyone can clearly and easily see your crazy rantings and reply to them. Nice attempt at a comment revolution though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you petty censors still trying this childish "flag" crap?
You're arguing in favour of this 3 strikes law, which would ban people from the internet, and thus, deprive them of a valuable method of free speech (to put in real world terms, if I steal a book from a bookstore, I'm not banned from reading books, just probably from that one book store).
Yet here you are about this censored comment, and promoting free speech. For what it's worth, I do agree with you on this, comments here shouldn't be hidden when flagged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Are you petty censors still trying this childish "flag" crap?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Are you petty censors still trying this childish "flag" crap?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, you are creating monsters!
As for the article itself, the numbers were actually much higher. They sent just 650k first strikes over millions of infringements they detected (I don't have the link for the article right now but it was on TF).
After some math we found out the entirety of France would be disconnected before the next Olympic Games. French Govt is surely doing it right. But oh the disappointment, I was waiting for over a million 3 strikes by now but only 60? Come on, either Hadopi is a total fail or the French are some sloppy bastards and already moved en masse to cyberlockers, seedboxes and the likes. I'd be inclined to think it's a mix of both if it wasn't for the fact that the French actually put Sarkozy in the power more than once...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irrelevant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huge Percentage?
France (according to Wikipedia) has a total population of 65,821,885. So 650,000 is less than 1% of the total population, that is NOT a huge percentage!
There are better ways to fight for changes in the law, other than breaking it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huge Percentage?
Laws are being put into place against the will of the people. Those laws deserve to be broke.
Can you provide examples of better ways?
Please keep in mind we aren't all billionaires. Writing letters doesn't work either, regardless of how many there are. Re:Canadian Copyright consultation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huge Percentage?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agreed. Same goes with the drug laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow
Pray tell, why is there not a single instance of someone convicted of larceny for copyright infringement? If it's theft, then someone should have been charged with theft for it by now, don't you think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Er: Er: Er: Er: Er: Er: Er: Er: Er: Er: Er: Er: Er: Er: Er: Er: Er: Er:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Er: Er: Er: Er: Er: Er: Er: Er: Er: Er: Er: Er: Er: Er: Er: Er: Er: Er:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright holders send out millions of IP addresses for infringement and the French government is only capable to process a few.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But for the sake of argument, let's just go with your example. Those 650,000 people take a vinyl record, you can easily prove this. You either catch them in the act of the theft, or follow them after the fact (through evidence) and take them to trial for the crime, after which they can be properly punished (either through fines or jail time). Justice is done according to the law in a proper manner.
In this situation, "evidence" is laughable (AT BEST), as has been proven time and time again (printers were infringing, yeah, that right there says how reliable their methods are). 3 strikes are required to cut someone off the internet. No due process is followed. Copyright holders merely send notifications to the ISPs, who for the sake of a voluntary agreement, pass them to the customers (who may or may not have actually done anything). This is bad precedent and just bad in general. "We say you are guilty, thus you are guilty. No you cannot fight this, see evidence against you, or get any kind of due process. So it has been spoken, so it shall be." That's what this is, anyone who supports such actions, regardless of the reason behind them, poses more of a threat to society in general than any "thief" or "infringer". (And I put that in " ", because of the fact that none of these people have been proven to be guilty of anything, these are literally just baseless accusations.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is more like sending notices to 650 000 people who heard music at the store while shopping for vinyl.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]